Possible good news in regards to D Line

Spare me the sanctimonious bull . No one, absolutely no one, has stated Brent should not be punished, or that dogs are worth are worth more than a human life.

You don't believe he should play football, or more specifically, for the Dallas Cowboys, then say so. But stop with the self righteous flaying of an imaginary dead horse.

You are right, no one has said that, if I knew how I would pull up the posts on Vick by members on this board calling him every name they can think of within the rules of the board and how he should never be allowed to play again... Over dogs, and I have three that are a much a part of my family as anyone. On the other side I don't hear that talk concerning Brent. As I said I could care less either way, it just looks bad for him to play here again, but as far as playing in the league? DC. So call it what you want cause I somehow missed that feeling of self righteousness I was supposed to feel in stating my opinion but the fact is what was said about Vick here is not being said about Brent. Furthermore this was not a discussion on that issue but on the suitability of Brent coming back here and I stated a valid reason for him not to, but some people go looking for the argument that is in their own head.

People make mistakes..sometimes very big mistakes.Lord knows I have made my share. If Jerry Brown s mother can forgive and Brent s paycheck can help take care of Jerry Brown s family then what's the problem. I'm sure Brown s family would be much better provided for with an NFL check than a Josh Brent security guard or car salesman paycheck. Would you agree? He can't replace Browns life but he CAN make the lives of his family the best it can be without having him there. And I'm sure after the forgiveness his mother gave Brent that he wants to be able to provide for them in a bad way. If you think that there should be certain consequences for these types of things then make it a condition of playing in the league again that whoever was affected by your crime gets a percentage of your guaranteed pay . If there are children left behind then the second condition is that their college education is paid for by a trust fund automatically deducted from your guaranteed money. Finally the third condition should be the the deceased or hurt person's family agrees to this. And why wouldn't they? If the player works at Walmart how does that help anybody affected by the crime or tragedy? The 10% employees discount?So to all of you who say he SHOULDN'T be able to play, YOU come up with a better way to provide for a family that has been a victim of such a tragedy. If the responsible party has the means to give them a better quality of life then why not take advantage of that instead of relying on the state or federal govt to use our tax money! You may not like the guilty party getting a second chance...but if it happened to YOU would you want welfare or a percentage of a multi million dollar contract and college for your children?I dare anybody to say they'd rather ruin a guys football career as "punishment" for what you lost, or to be financially taken care of....but I'm sure somebody here will say that money doesn't matter. The only people that say that are the ones who already have plenty of it and don't know how it is to struggle paycheck to paycheck if they even have one at all.

You are right, no one has said that, if I knew how I would pull up the posts on Vick by members on this board calling him every name they can think of within the rules of the board and how he should never be allowed to play again... Over dogs, and I have three that are a much a part of my family as anyone. On the other side I don't hear that talk concerning Brent. As I said I could care less either way, it just looks bad for him to play here again, but as far as playing in the league? DC. So call it what you want cause I somehow missed that feeling of self righteousness I was supposed to feel in stating my opinion but the fact is what was said about Vick here is not being said about Brent. Furthermore this was not a discussion on that issue but on the suitability of Brent coming back here and I stated a valid reason for him not to, but some people go looking for the argument that is in their own head.

You do realize that is light years in difference from the original statement, don't you? If you said that in the beginning, no one would have a problem with it.

Honestly don't know, he can still play ball as far as I'm concerned but I don't think it should be in Dallas. Also I've seen people on here more angry at Vick and his dogs than this guy for causing the death of another person. Hmmm!!! But if he did play in Dallas I wouldn't care, I just think It shows bad.

I've seen the Vick comparison arguments before, and don't find them very convincing, honestly. Obviously, everybody on this board--everybody, everywhere--understands that human lives are valued above the lives of dogs. That isn't the question.

The bad decisions that Brent and Brown made that night were horrible. The consequences were tragic, and they could have been much more tragic. But the event was the result of really bad and impaired judgement. Not just to drink and drive, but to get in the car with a driver who'd been drinking, and to not wear a seatbelt on that ride. Just a sad set of events, all the way around, with an end more tragic than any dog fight.

But the intent in that situation is very different from the cruel and perverse intent behind illegal dog fighting. And it's the intent more than the outcome that gets measured when you're evaluating the player's suitability for the league.

The legal system handles the consequences for the citizens. Beyond that, when the decedent's family is standing firmly behind the player, and the decedent's small children stand to benefit from the player's rehabilitation, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument not to allow the guy a chance to rehabilitate his life and his career if he's good enough to play in this league.

And that shouldn't be seen as a validation of drinking and driving, which it clearly is not. It's a validation of the idea that people can try hard to repair the damage done when they make a serious mistake, and that we should accept those efforts if we believe they were made in good faith.

I've seen the Vick comparison arguments before, and don't find them very convincing, honestly. Obviously, everybody on this board--everybody, everywhere--understands that human lives are valued above the lives of dogs. That isn't the question.

The bad decisions that Brent and Brown made that night were horrible. The consequences were tragic, and they could have been much more tragic. But the event was the result of really bad and impaired judgement. Not just to drink and drive, but to get in the car with a driver who'd been drinking, and to not wear a seatbelt on that ride. Just a sad set of events, all the way around, with an end more tragic than any dog fight.

But the intent in that situation is very different from the cruel and perverse intent behind illegal dog fighting. And it's the intent more than the outcome that gets measured when you're evaluating the player's suitability for the league.

The legal system handles the consequences for the citizens. Beyond that, when the decedent's family is standing firmly behind the player, and the decedent's small children stand to benefit from the player's rehabilitation, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument not to allow the guy a chance to rehabilitate his life and his career if he's good enough to play in this league.

And that shouldn't be seen as a validation of drinking and driving, which it clearly is not. It's a validation of the idea that people can try hard to repair the damage done when they make a serious mistake, and that we should accept those efforts if we believe they were made in good faith.

I don't recall saying I had a problem with him continuing to play football. Once again I said I don't think it would show good for him to play in Dallas again. A new team where ghosts of the past for both sides are not there would probably be better, and as far as Vick goes it was a comparison but I think he overpaid for his crime as an example, I know people that dog and chicken fight and never have any of them paid a price as steep as his when caught. So the intent or even maliciousness didn't fit the harshness of the penalty based on past precedence, also not to beat Brent up but didn't he have a prior concerning alcohol?

I don't recall saying I had a problem with him continuing to play football. Once again I said I don't think it would show good for him to play in Dallas again. A new team where ghosts of the past for both sides are not there would probably be better, and as far as Vick goes it was a comparison but I think he overpaid for his crime as an example, I know people that dog and chicken fight and never have any of them paid a price as steep as his when caught. So the intent or even maliciousness didn't fit the harshness of the penalty based on past precedence, also not to beat Brent up but didn't he have a prior concerning alcohol?

I don't see what difference it makes what team he plays for in terms of the overall discussion of whether or not he should be allowed to play again. But, when it comes to what's appropriate, I'd assume he'd want most to play with the guys who understood what he was going through and who stood by him during what's had to have been a gut wrenching time for him and for the Brown family. And I'd assume that Dallas would be a better environment for him than some others, given the history, support of the team, and the resources Jerry devotes to his players when it comes to issues like this.

As for Vick, it's not really related to this discussion in any way, so I'll just let that part of the discussion drop, though I wasn't one of the posters up in arms about Vick, either (though I do think the animal cruelty is shameful and I don't have much sympathy for him one way or another).

I've seen the Vick comparison arguments before, and don't find them very convincing, honestly. Obviously, everybody on this board--everybody, everywhere--understands that human lives are valued above the lives of dogs. That isn't the question.

The bad decisions that Brent and Brown made that night were horrible. The consequences were tragic, and they could have been much more tragic. But the event was the result of really bad and impaired judgement. Not just to drink and drive, but to get in the car with a driver who'd been drinking, and to not wear a seatbelt on that ride. Just a sad set of events, all the way around, with an end more tragic than any dog fight.

But the intent in that situation is very different from the cruel and perverse intent behind illegal dog fighting. And it's the intent more than the outcome that gets measured when you're evaluating the player's suitability for the league.

The legal system handles the consequences for the citizens. Beyond that, when the decedent's family is standing firmly behind the player, and the decedent's small children stand to benefit from the player's rehabilitation, it's pretty hard to make a convincing argument not to allow the guy a chance to rehabilitate his life and his career if he's good enough to play in this league.

And that shouldn't be seen as a validation of drinking and driving, which it clearly is not. It's a validation of the idea that people can try hard to repair the damage done when they make a serious mistake, and that we should accept those efforts if we believe they were made in good faith.

Exactly, what Vick did was INTENTIONAL... even though what happened with Brent tragically caused Brown to lose his life it was not something that was planned or intentional. Brown also knew that Brent was drunk but neither of them attempted to find another way to get where they were going. Vick did intentionally horrible cruel things to animals that could not defend themselves. On top of that they were things that made them suffer. Think about the person's mentality that can look into dogs eyes and beat them and torture them when they depend on you to care for them and they don't even understand why people they love are hurting them. Imagine how scared and laying in pain they were which is exactly what Vick and his crew wanted. A persons life is a bigger deal but its the circumstances. I'm sure Brown wasn't scared of what he was gonna get next...a beating, drowning, electrocution, or another dog ripping chunks of flesh and skin from him.

I don't see what difference it makes what team he plays for in terms of the overall discussion of whether or not he should be allowed to play again. But, when it comes to what's appropriate, I'd assume he'd want most to play with the guys who understood what he was going through and who stood by him during what's had to have been a gut wrenching time for him and for the Brown family. And I'd assume that Dallas would be a better environment for him than some others, given the history, support of the team, and the resources Jerry devotes to his players when it comes to issues like this.

As for Vick, it's not really related to this discussion in any way, so I'll just let that part of the discussion drop, though I wasn't one of the posters up in arms about Vick, either (though I do think the animal cruelty is shameful and I don't have much sympathy for him one way or another).

My point of view is mostly based on Dallas trying to keep a clean image, I'm one of those that had no problem with the White House days and honestly feel that their business is theirs. The problem is what kind of image are you projecting though, if they can accept him back (which I have no problem with) then they can get rid of the RKG mantra a and start taking chances on some other players that may be really good players with a slightly checkered past. But the need to decide if they want to wear the white hat or the black hat cause Jason has made it clear since he has been here that there are no shades of gray.

My point of view is mostly based on Dallas trying to keep a clean image, I'm one of those that had no problem with the White House days and honestly feel that their business is theirs. The problem is what kind of image are you projecting though, if they can accept him back (which I have no problem with) then they can get rid of the RKG mantra a and start taking chances on some other players that may be really good players with a slightly checkered past. But the need to decide if they want to wear the white hat or the black hat cause Jason has made it clear since he has been here that there are no shades of gray.

Ah..now I see where you're coming from. I get that. I don't necessarily agree that Brent's the WKG based off of this incident, but, then, I think that RKG thing gets taken way out of context most of the time, anyway.

I don't recall saying I had a problem with him continuing to play football. Once again I said I don't think it would show good for him to play in Dallas again. A new team where ghosts of the past for both sides are not there would probably be better, and as far as Vick goes it was a comparison but I think he overpaid for his crime as an example, I know people that dog and chicken fight and never have any of them paid a price as steep as his when caught. So the intent or even maliciousness didn't fit the harshness of the penalty based on past precedence, also not to beat Brent up but didn't he have a prior concerning alcohol?

but you dont understand

these same homer posters coming up with page long posts in defense of brent will be in the front of the line to crucify him and ridicule another team if they play him

to say that repeatedly getting drunk and getting behind the wheel of a car knowing full well that can seriously harm or kill someone (and did) is not a 'willfull' act is excuse-making at its best

the nauseating excuse-making has nothing to do with what they actually believe but a reflection of the fact that they would excuse anything for a player on their team

they talk about a coach that preaches RKG but when it comes down to a player that can help the team, they are willing to excuse anything and all this RKG stuff is so much fluff and we get posts like "i hope he turns his career around for his sake and that of the brown family"

Ah..now I see where you're coming from. I get that. I don't necessarily agree that Brent's the WKG based off of this incident, but, then, I think that RKG thing gets taken way out of context most of the time, anyway.

please the "context" in which a person that gets repeatedly drunk and drives and finally kills someone doing this is RKG

please the "context" in which a person that gets repeatedly drunk and drives and finally kills someone doing this is RKG

I'll take a stab at what I think your question was.

I'd make a distinction between a player making a really bad decision and a player being the wrong kind of guy.

And I think the idea of a 'RKG' gets distorted around here to begin with. The right kinds of guys are not necessarily boy scouts. All that's meant by 'the right kinds of guy' is a player who's skilled, who has leadership qualities, is a good teammate, works hard, is intelligent, and a player to whom football is important. There's a huge range of personality types that can fit easily into that description, and not all of them are tea totalers. They don't have to be choir boys. They don't have to abstain from liquor. They can wear baggy pants to the mall if they want to.

I'll agree that Brent's decisions raise legitimate questions about whether or not he's the right kind of guy for this team, but I don't think they necessarily mean he's not a fit. Like anything, the context matters and the team needs to look into it, but I believe, if they thought he was not worthy of rehabilitation, they'd have freed up his roster spot long before now.

None of that's an excuse for Josh's decision to drink and drive. He needs to pay the legal price for that. And I'll reiterate that this would have been a much less tragic story if Jerry Brown had clicked a seat belt when he got in the car with a legally drunk driver.

I'd make a distinction between a player making a really bad decision and a player being the wrong kind of guy.

And I think the idea of a 'RKG' gets distorted around here to begin with. The right kinds of guys are not necessarily boy scouts. All that's meant by 'the right kinds of guy' is a player who's skilled, who has leadership qualities, is a good teammate, works hard, is intelligent, and a player to whom football is important. There's a huge range of personality types that can fit easily into that description, and not all of them are tea totalers. They don't have to be choir boys. They don't have to abstain from liquor. They can wear baggy pants to the mall if they want to.

I'll agree that Brent's decisions raise legitimate questions about whether or not he's the right kind of guy for this team, but I don't think they necessarily mean he's not a fit. Like anything, the context matters and the team needs to look into it, but I believe, if they thought he was not worthy of rehabilitation, they'd have freed up his roster spot long before now.

None of that's an excuse for Josh's decision to drink and drive. He needs to pay the legal price for that. And I'll reiterate that this would have been a much less tragic story if Jerry Brown had clicked a seat belt when he got in the car with a legally drunk driver.

there is no "context" in which doing something willfully that shows a disregard for life is OK

what this boils down to is excuse-making because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth (bolded) just not wanting to admit it

people hang on to garretts catch phrases like they actually mean something

"right kind of guys" is not just a player for whom footbal is important, "right kind of guys" should not be making the "wrong kind of decisons" repeatedly because "wrong kind of decisons" are what define "wrong kind of guys"

if not... this is just talk backed up by no action which is garretts MO

there is no "context" in which doing something willfully that shows a disregard for life is OK

what this boils down to is excuse-making because you are talking out of both sides of your mouth (bolded) just not wanting to admit it

people hang on to garretts catch phrases like they actually mean something

"right kind of guys" is not just a player for whom footbal is important, "right kind of guys" should not be making the "wrong kind of decisons" repeatedly because "wrong kind of decisons" are what define "wrong kind of guys"

if not... this is just talk backed up by no action which is garretts MO

talking about accountability and discipline but enforcing neither

As you usually do, you're missing the point and arriving at the wrong conclusion as a result. But I'm not interested in trading barbs on the topic with you.

It's clear if you're paying attention what types of personalities Jason Garrett is adding to the team. And it's clear by whom he cuts what he's holding players accountable for and where he's willing to work with guys. All you have to do is look at the decisions themselves to notice the pattern.

As far as the drinking and driving goes, since this is a topic people might feel strongly about for very personal reasons, I don't have any interest in getting anywhere near defending the Josh Brent's decision that night. I'll just say again that it's up to the legal system to assess that and that the player deserves whatever he gets in that regard. Beyond that, it's my hope that he rehabilitates his life and his career to the extent possible, and that I'm perfectly fine with the idea that some of that rehabilitation might come in Dallas. If you feel differently, that's your prerogative.

As you usually do, you're missing the point and arriving at the wrong conclusion as a result. But I'm not interested in trading barbs on the topic with you.

It's clear if you're paying attention what types of personalities Jason Garrett is adding to the team. And it's clear by whom he cuts what he's holding players accountable for and where he's willing to work with guys. All you have to do is look at the decisions themselves to notice the pattern.

As far as the drinking and driving goes, since this is a topic people might feel strongly about for very personal reasons, I don't have any interest in getting anywhere near defending the Josh Brent's decision that night. I'll just say again that it's up to the legal system to assess that and that the player deserves whatever he gets in that regard. Beyond that, it's my hope that he rehabilitates his life and his career to the extent possible, and that I'm perfectly fine with the idea that some of that rehabilitation might come in Dallas. If you feel differently, that's your prerogative.

the usual distractions to avoid the issue wont help

the point is that someone repeatedly making willfull mistakes (because drinking in excess when you know you will be driving is a willfull decision) that eventually result in the loss of someones life cannot be brushed under the carpet by any amount of double talk

Idgit"I'll agree that Brent's decisions raise legitimate questions about whether or not he's the right kind of guy for this team, but I don't think they necessarily mean he's not a fit."